> >>>Patrick Stickler said:
[...]
> > That said, the M&S view that the language is "part of" the
> > literal is not quite right, and probably should be adjusted
> > (or removed), in that, as with datatyping, language is a
> > property of the occurrence (context) of the literal
> > and not the literal itself.
M&S defines language to be part of the literal. Its simple: a literal is a
pair ("string", "lang").
My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change this. Do
you have one Patrick?
> And especially since literals are
> > now tidy,
The pair above is just as tidy as "string".
Brian